[491838]

Oh please. How about we listen to what we enjoy listening to? I've heard "perfectly flat" and "distortion-free" gear that sounded like absolute boring s--t. I've tasted salt free and fat free casseroles that tasted like s--t. Some of the most musical and wonderful sounding tube amplification measures like s--t.

I realize this is probably a pandemic-induced boredom thread continuation, buld not believe the 20+ pages of garbage I tried to wade thru only to end up where I started 20+ years ago.

- different people like different sounds
- different sounds measure different ways
- different equipment measures different sounds in different ways
- different methods of measuring measures different sounds in different ways

And there's hundreds of posts trying to find a right and wrong here?


My take on the Diana? I really liked it. I liked how I just heard the driver and no resonating housing/headbands joining in. I didn't care about how it might have measured. I adapted to the sound of the driver (easy to do) and enjoyed music through it. I'd like to hear the 1266 some day.

There are many here who appear to not like this headphone, perhaps have not owned it or listened to it, or have owned/listened and didn't like it. To them this should be history, a moot topic. Yet they are arguing ad nauseum about it's measurements and bad mouthing at every opportunity. Seems kind of pointless and a waste of time. Grab some headphones you love and enjoy.

You're missing the point though. Harman research isn't telling people what they should like. It's attempting to study what kind of sound target most people would prefer in order to have a baseline for developing headphones. Measuring and listening to them are both equally valid tools.

 

[Beagle]

You're missing the point though. Harman research isn't telling people what they should like. It's attempting to study what kind of sound target most people would prefer in order to have a baseline for developing headphones. Measuring and listening to them are both equally valid tools.

I wish them luck because it can't be done. Anyone who has spent more than a couple of hours here knows that. How else to explain every single headphone ever built has been subjected to a mod or two in order to change the sound. Unless you want a 'Big Mac' headphone, you will have to choose what sounds good to you.

If Harman read Head-Fi, they would give up and measure the heart patterns of hummingbirds in various countries around the world.
Since we will never agree on one sound, maybe they can research into the elimination of colorations and resonances caused by housings and find the ideal materials for headphone chambers and headbands.

 

[bluestorm1992]

I wish them luck because it can't be done. Anyone who has spent more than a couple of hours here knows that. How else to explain every single headphone ever built has been subjected to a mod or two in order to change the sound. Unless you want a 'Big Mac' headphone, you will have to choose what sounds good to you.

If Harman read Head-Fi, they would give up and measure the heart patterns of hummingbirds in various countries around the world.
Since we will never agree on one sound, maybe they can research into the elimination of colorations and resonances caused by housings and find the ideal materials for headphone chambers and headbands.

Consumers and manufacturers approach the problem of measurement differently.

For the manufacturer, it is about (1) quality control; (2) produces a product that fits the average taste of the (target) customers. Think about the process a manufacturer has to go through: R&D - prototype production - mass production with quality control. Such a process would be impossible without a clearly defined benchmark so that the success and failure of each step can be clearly measured. In the case of headphone manufacturing, the FR cure is such a benchmark that can be used throughout.

For consumers, however, they approach the problem differently. First, the FR curve could be capturing an average taste, but individuals differ in their specific tastes. Harman's own research also tries to cover this: age, gender, culture, along with individual preferences, all could have a significant impact on your listening experience with a headphone. This is why it is so important to do an audition whenever possible, especially for very expensive headphones. Fitting the curve well does not mean it will fit your taste well, and vice-versa.

 

[491838]

If Harman read Head-Fi, they would give up and measure the heart patterns of hummingbirds in various countries around the world.
Since we will never agree on one sound, maybe they can research into the elimination of colorations and resonances caused by housings and find the ideal materials for headphone chambers and headbands.

You cannot tune headphones blindly like that lol. I don't think that you understand human hearing or the concept of a headphone target.

 

[Beagle]

You cannot tune headphones blindly like that lol. I don't think that you understand human hearing or the concept of a headphone target.

Thank God for that.

 

[No Days Off]

You should read this thread on reddit.

Wow, thanks for sharing.

 

[bluestorm1992]

Wow, thanks for sharing.

As much as I like their headphones, I have to say I am not a big fan of their cables, especially considering their values. I think I have the same impression as @julien-hifi regarding their superconductor cable: It sounds a bit different from the stock cable, but it is hard to say that it sounds better.

With that being said, another big element in the cable is the build/feel of the cable. For some reason, my wife really likes the superconductor cable because it is braided and feels soft and nice. Just because of this I have to keep the cable lol.

 

[bithloman]

You cannot tune headphones blindly like that lol. I don't think that you understand human hearing or the concept of a headphone target.

i would love for you to explain human hearing to us in your words. after all you have decided that you get to say other people dont understand human hearing which to me is a very bizarre thing to proclaim and would therefore put the burden of proof on yourself to be the end all of knowledge of the human ear and how it interfaces with the brain and sounds.

 

[Randy Myers]

Maybe I have missed the point. I thought this was a thread about Abyss headphones and then I see post after post about Audeze and reviews??? Did I miss something?

For the record I try to relate my posts and comparison's to headphones I have owned or at the very least heard. I have owned LCD-i4's and heard several other from Audeze. I have owned Focal Clear, Sennheiser HD800s, Mr Speakers Ether, McIntosh MHP1000, etc., and that is what I use to compare to my Abyss Diana Phi. They were some excellent headphones but the Abyss are in another world in my view.

 

[TheMiddleSky]

You're missing the point though. Harman research isn't telling people what they should like. It's attempting to study what kind of sound target most people would prefer in order to have a baseline for developing headphones. Measuring and listening to them are both equally valid tools.

You're kidding right? In harman research (based on your link) they only use less than 300 correspondence as sample. Compare to... err... other 7 billions human's taste?

Also, they only use (very limited) 3 tracks to all people who got tested.

What @Beagle wrote exactly mirror my mind. We can't simply rule one kind of sound character that please most people, that's why every speakers tune/sound different.

Heck, we can not even create 1 type of hamburger that please everyone. Yeah Mc Donald's has the biggest chain, but I also heard many people trash their burgers.

To make my post still relate to the thread, Abyss Diana V2 easily prove that she worth the extra price when compare to other excellent planar Audeze LCD-X.

The fluidity, micro detail, and imaging quality clearly one step above the X.

 

[Beagle]

Consumers and manufacturers approach the problem of measurement differently.

For the manufacturer, it is about (1) quality control; (2) produces a product that fits the average taste of the (target) customers. Think about the process a manufacturer has to go through: R&D - prototype production - mass production with quality control. Such a process would be impossible without a clearly defined benchmark so that the success and failure of each step can be clearly measured. In the case of headphone manufacturing, the FR cure is such a benchmark that can be used throughout.

For consumers, however, they approach the problem differently. First, the FR curve could be capturing an average taste, but individuals differ in their specific tastes. Harman's own research also tries to cover this: age, gender, culture, along with individual preferences, all could have a significant impact on your listening experience with a headphone. This is why it is so important to do an audition whenever possible, especially for very expensive headphones. Fitting the curve well does not mean it will fit your taste well, and vice-versa.

As Beats discovered 15 years ago. Then the public. Some loved them, many hated them.

It was my impression that the Harman curve was a specific absolute. You can't have an absolute for differing tastes and listening criteria. It's like a car, where the only absolute is that the wheels should be round. Everything else is up to a specific design for a specific market.

 

[bluestorm1992]

As Beats discovered 15 years ago. Then the public. Some loved them, many hated them.

It was my impression that the Harman curve was a specific absolute. You can't have an absolute for differing tastes and listening criteria. It's like a car, where the only absolute is that the wheels should be round. Everything else is up to a specific design for a specific market.

My understanding from Harman’s report is that the FR curve has subjective elements, and is the research result from testing with actual listeners for their preferences, along with many other measuring equipments.

I also agree with The Middle sky’s opinion that we should treat harman’s result with some reservation rather than the “absolute gold standard” in measuring EVERY headphone.

 

[thebkt]

To make my post still relate to the thread, Abyss Diana V2 easily prove that she worth the extra price when compare to other excellent planar Audeze LCD-X.

The fluidity, micro detail, and imaging quality clearly one step above the X.

Here, here. The MX4 is a slight step up from the X and I find the Diana's are a clear step up from the MX4, especially in the treble... yet apparently they're nothing but distortion up there!? Funny, it's almost as if some measurements have been poorly taken or something.

 

[Beagle]

Here, here. The MX4 is a slight step up from the X and I find the Diana's are a clear step up from the MX4, especially in the treble... yet apparently they're nothing but distortion up there!? Funny, it's almost as if some measurements have been poorly taken or something.

All headphones have some sort of distortion and coloration. It's where the problem lies that will affect different listeners in different ways. My problem with the Audezes was that the upper mids/lower treble was always gone. Everything was too polite.

 

[491838]

i would love for you to explain human hearing to us in your words. after all you have decided that you get to say other people dont understand human hearing which to me is a very bizarre thing to proclaim and would therefore put the burden of proof on yourself to be the end all of knowledge of the human ear and how it interfaces with the brain and sounds.

He was talking about resonances happening in the headphone due to specific materials being used. There is no concept of resonance outside the context of an actual tuning target and the subsequent measurements.

You're kidding right? In harman research (based on your link) they only use less than 300 correspondence as sample. Compare to... err... other 7 billions human's taste?

Also, they only use (very limited) 3 tracks to all people who got tested.

What @Beagle wrote exactly mirror my mind. We can't simply rule one kind of sound character that please most people, that's why every speakers tune/sound different.

Heck, we can not even create 1 type of hamburger that please everyone. Yeah Mc Donald's has the biggest chain, but I also heard many people trash their burgers.

To make my post still relate to the thread, Abyss Diana V2 easily prove that she worth the extra price when compare to other excellent planar Audeze LCD-X.

The fluidity, micro detail, and imaging quality clearly one step above the X.

They've done some subsequent research in many countries in Europe, Asia, and of course America. They used hundreds more and arrived to the same conclusion: that most people prefer something that resembles the Harman target with some adjustments made to the bass and treble. But the shape of the target remains largely the same because the initial target was calculated from a flat speaker system in a room with the measurement being tweaked based on occluded ear microphones on actual human subjects (to more or less confirm the accuracy of the head and torso simulator).

I don't think a headphone needs to follow the target 100% in order to sound good but errant peaks in the response for instance may point to design problems if they are indeed audible by ear. Amir's subjective evaluation could be correct according to his preferences (i.e. a smooth balanced response).